Apple Rehab Saybrook

Name: Apple Rehab Saybrook
Address: 1775 BOSTON POST RD, Old Saybrook, CT, 06475, US
Telephone: 8603996216

1775 Boston Post Rd, Old Saybrook, CT 06475 · Lower Ct River Vly County · 120 certified beds · avg 63 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967

Part of chain: APPLE REHAB (20 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.35

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 31, 2019 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Nov 29, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (49)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Jan 7, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · from a complaint
Jul 22, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jul 22, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jul 22, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Jan 23, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Jan 23, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Jan 9, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jan 9, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jan 9, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults.
Jan 9, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Jan 9, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Jan 9, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jan 9, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Jan 9, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Jan 9, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Nov 2, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Nov 2, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Jul 28, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 28, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jul 28, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jul 28, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Jul 28, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not report COVID-19 data to residents and their families as required. Facilities must keep residents and families informed about COVID-19 cases.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals.
Jul 28, 2022	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Jul 28, 2022	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Oct 31, 2019	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Oct 31, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Oct 31, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Oct 31, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Oct 31, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Oct 31, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Oct 31, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 9).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	14	1	G ▲
2022	14	0	E
2023	2	0	D
2025	14	0	F
2026	5	0	D

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

Measure	This facility	Connecticut avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	3.35	3.80	3.95	bottom 25% in Connecticut; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.73	0.70	0.69	top 31% in Connecticut; top 34% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.05	3.43	3.50	bottom 26% in Connecticut; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.47	0.46	0.48	top 35% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	30.8	37.4	45.8	top 26% in Connecticut; top 16% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	33.3	38.6	42.9	top 36% in Connecticut; top 33% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.12, RN 0.68, weekend 2.84. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Foley, Brian	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	09/09/2009
Foley, Brian	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	09/09/2009
Singh, Devika	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	09/10/2018
Vess, Ryan	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	03/15/2013
Vess, Ryan	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	03/15/2013
Vess, Ryan	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/15/2013

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
"Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
"If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Gladeview Health Care Center	1.2 mi	Old Saybrook, CT	★★★☆☆	3/5
Essex Meadows Health Center	3.0 mi	Essex, CT	★★★★★	4/5
Bride Brook Rehabilitation & Nursing Center	7.0 mi	Niantic, CT	★★★★★	5/5
Aaron Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation	8.6 mi	Chester, CT	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Civita Care Bayview	11.1 mi	Waterford, CT	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Peconic Landing at Southhold	12.5 mi	Greenport, NY	★★★★★	4/5
Chestelm Health and Rehabilitation Center	13.3 mi	Moodus, CT	★★★★★	5/5
New London Sub-Acute and Nursing	13.3 mi	Waterford, CT	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuseSFF
Autumn Lake Healthcare at Madison	13.6 mi	Madison, CT	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Greentree Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	13.7 mi	Waterford, CT	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Apple Rehab Guilford	14.2 mi	Guilford, CT	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Harbor Village North Health and Rehabilitation Cen	14.4 mi	New London, CT	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Old Saybrook →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075070.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Apple Rehab Saybrook

1775 Boston Post Rd, Old Saybrook, CT 06475 · 8603996216

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Oct 31, 2019 (F-0689, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
☐ "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
☐ "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 075070 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)